Colorado supreme court ruled that they can take Trump off the ballot, now it looks like California is trying to do that as well. Meanwhile, republican states are threatening to retaliate in kind.
This seems unprecedented for US, does anybody know what happens in this scenario?
I have a theory that the calls for unity between the democrats and republicans stems from an intrinsic understanding of the destructiveness of imperialism.
i bet whatever form california and texas (and maybe new york or florida) end up as would gobble up their significantly weaker/poorer neighbors and both would end up warring with each other at some point.
We should start building a Psyker throne and make Bernie the God Emperor with how ancient he would be if by some insane chance he accidentally wins.
I’m sure his Israel policy will be measured and good! /s
Republicans can’t retaliate in kind because they have no precedent or legal backing to do so. This is basic pandering, temper tantrum, and political grandstanding for their constituents in order to not appear weak. States are mostly within their rights, especially ones who have clauses written into their constitutions regarding this, in removing Trump for being under inditement for a plethora of federal crimes related to crimes against the republic and the “democratic process”.
While he is a criminal in the grand sense, Biden is not under investigation, charged, or been found guilty for any federal crimes. So removing his ballot would be overturned during the appeals process near instantly.
Republicans can’t retaliate in kind because they have no precedent or legal backing to do so.
They don't have the legal backing to do a lot of things they already do so I don't see how that will stop anything.
Plus they can just decide to give all the electoral votes to Trump regardless of the vote total which would accomplish much the same thing while being entirely constitutional.
Yes, but attempt to explain that to the feds. Republicans love to do things without precedent, but the second it actually threatens the republic in any meaningful way without the go ahead of the ruling class and bourgeoisie… I’m sure they would be thrilled that republicans are ruining the veil of American “democracy” by acting like children.
Further, giving all the electoral votes to Trump would mean nothing. Congress still has to certify the votes for this exact reason. It is a ceremonial gesture, but during which congress would simply throw out those votes and render them useless.
but the second it actually threatens the republic in any meaningful way without the go ahead of the ruling class and bourgeoisie…
You will recall that they did actually decide to start a civil war they couldn’t win when they saw that it was impossible for them to win the presidency.
Nearly 200 years ago, and a very small subsection of slave owning agricultural bourgeoisie that found their ownership of the means of production threatened. The northern capitalists were more then pissed at what the south attempted.
There is no such precedent this time around. The bourgeoisie are united in their ideals and goals.
The resource-extractive petite bourgeoisie has a major problem with the national bourgeoisie that’s getting even richer by outsourcing everything to China. This is why there’s such a major contradiction between the liberals and fascists in the USA, why 1/6 happened, and why liberals and fascists view each other as illegitimate brainwashed playthings of foreign powers. I think the petite bourgeoisie and their labor aristocrat hangers-on are approaching a point where war is becoming their only option. In such a scenario, we wouldn’t just be dealing with the chud dipshits in the countryside with five hundred guns in their basements. We’d also have to deal with elements in the military who are at this moment wondering if they’re going to have to do a coup.
States are mostly within their rights, especially ones who have clauses written into their constitutions regarding this, in removing Trump for being under inditement for a plethora of federal crimes related to crimes against the republic and the “democratic process”.
Federal crimes like lying about hush money to his pornstar mistress? I mean, how many of us here actually buy the claims he "instigated an insurrection"- or that the "capitol attack" was much of, if any sort of insurrection (much less one instigated by Trump), that Trump tried to rig the election, or that his bringing classified documents home and to the washroom, as POTUS, was some great act of treason? Is the using of RICO laws- blatantly excessive, overly broad, whose use since inception has never been about justice but rather striking at those the government can't pin anything else on- supposed to strengthen their case?
I don't like the guy, but the more indictments they toss his way, the more certain I am that they're just trying to bury him, and these are political attacks and the weaponization of the courts against a political opponent on a scale not really seen (against a former POTUS no less) in US history. Trump is no less dirty, no less a criminal by the legal definitions, of a candidate than Biden if you ask me- but rather the opposite- literally nothing the establishment elites are accusing Trump of either doing (or wanting to do in a second term), they aren't doing many times over at the moment.
If I cared in any way whatsoever about liberal "democracy," and if I believed it was actual democracy- if you ask me, the real enemy of that system is Biden and the gang.
Fascism in America and the west has proven to come now, not merely with a flag and a bible- it's with two groups of competing fascists, both with flags, one holding the bible, and the other holding a much smaller rainbow flag (rainbow-washing, mere tokenism, mind) and espousing all sorts of faux-progressive platitudes. And if you ask me- my take on things is, one side has started its own take on the Reichstag fire and is now doing its best to stir the flames- and it's not the Trump side.
I very much agree with this. The real concern people who care about the current system in US should have is with the precedent being set here. It's very obviously a political prosecution and liberals being the smooth brains that they are keep cheering this on. What they don't seem to realize is that once the precedent is set, then this will be how politics are done going forward. They're forging the tools that the future fascist government will use to jail all its opposition.
These idiots have infantile understanding of how fascists take over a country. They think it's going to be a spectacle like Jan 6 where armed mobs overthrow the government. The reality is that fascists will simply take over the existing state machinery. All the police militarization, surveillance laws, and so on are what's actually setting up the stage for open fascism.
I don't agree with this "setting precedents is bad" logic. The Republicans have shown absolutely no qualms about breaking with previous precedents and setting their own, so why should the Democrats? From our POV this is just an indication that the collapse of US institutional legitimacy might proceed slightly faster than it was before, but it in no way alters the course that the political system has been taking since the neoliberal turn.
For sure, this is an indicator of how far the collapse of the institutions has progressed more than anything else. Deteriorating material conditions is the underlying reason that US institutions are losing legitimacy, and there's no path to fixing that problem that I can see within the current system.
I agree with many points in here or don't disagree enough to really respond.
However, I will say about the "insurrection" stuff: did Trump orchestrate it? Depends on what that means to you, I guess.
To me, a sitting president spent 2 months-ish crying because he lost, refused to just say that he lost, and then tweeted "everyone! I have evidence! Come to the Capitol Jan 6th! It'll be wild!" (Paraphrasing there obviously). And (further paraphrasing) had his henchmen and kid give speeches followed by himself which boiled down to "we're gonna go to the Capitol building...and convince them to not certify this election. wink wink"
So he purposely and clearly spent months after and years before the election laying the ground, prepping his base (and Republicans had done this for 40+ years waaaaaay prior to Trump. They've been whining about election stealing back to Kennedy, LBJ, etc. (some legitimate, some not. Also they did the same shit anyway).
Then he gave them a specific event which he manufactured basically and pretended it mattered beyond ceremony (the actual stuff on Jan 6 is literally just ceremony. All the locking-in has been done by that point. As Pence correctly has said, it didn't matter what he did/didnt do that day (from a purely legal outlook)).
And on the day he planned he gave a speech basically like "go MAKE them listen." Did he say directly "go kill Nancy!"? No. But did he need to? Does a mafia boss have to say directly "kill whoever" or can it be reasonably assumed at a certain point that they're saying certain things, doing certain things, etc. with a clear agenda towards encouraging an outcome?
I mean, look. I don't actually care about congress, the Capitol, their ceremonies, etc. We all know this is a farce and has been for quite some time... it isn't a democracy it's just a capitalist-controlled hellscape. But I'm also not gonna pretend Trump didn't sick his hordes of most brainbroken, most fanatic supporters on congress to harass them. Do I think he expected them to actually break in and accomplish anything (killing members, specifically)? No. But he knew what he was doing.
I think the event itself is overhyped, but, be definitely did that shit. What I find more concerning is the stuff like threatening officials in GA (a perfect phone call folks!). Again, liberal democracy blah blah blah, but if we're playing the game, and we all are because we are stuck in it, he definitely was going far beyond any acceptable practices there and his party leaders should've barred him from office. Can't have a shitty liberal democracy if one party is just clearly ignoring the law, telling a state official to "find votes," etc.
I know this will absolutely never happen, but every time I hear Trump speaking on legitimate problems, I'm like "GODDAMNIT man! Can he drop the Nazi bullshit and just do... good stuff? He wants us to like him. Just do good shit!" Obviously that's pure fantasy, but it's absolutely frustrating sometimes hearing him speak, how he can read a room, and then seeing him pivot directly into the same neoliberal bullshit as everyone else.
However, I will say about the “insurrection” stuff: did Trump orchestrate it? Depends on what that means to you, I guess.
I understand why they're going after him for it, legality be damned- but if you ask me? As you seem to agree, this wasn't an insurrection- and considering you agree with, or don't particularly disagree with, many of my points- they're grasping at straws or coming up with complete fabrications and farces of lawfare, to pin him and his supporters down as a result.
It's not a crime to contest an election- hell, the last time to my knowledge was with a Democrat- Al Gore. End of the day, Trump can't be said to have instigated anything more than an a protest which has since been blown wildly out of proportion IMO. They don't have anything legally (that is remotely related nor anywhere near similar to charges of "insurrection," anyways) on him, hell, they don't have anything on the majority of his supporters, but they're working like hell (and obfuscating events of capitol hill, and stretching the notions of plausibility like hell) to charge him with all sorts of things, with all sorts of assumptions simply taken for granted and swept under the rug legally, in order to do it.
That's what I'm seeing, anyways. The criminalization of a mass political movement (of assholes, sure, but assholes who are entirely within their legal rights to be assholes) and the persecution of the most prominent political opponent, a classic case of lawfare and complete perversion of law in my books, though not one I can really care too much about.
I guess I'm operating within the mindset of "if these are the rules (like you don't send a giant swarm of hogs towards the capitol) then he broke the rules and he should pay." It's also pretty clear by now that very little will happen to him. I know the libs are coping, but we all know Trump is only leaving the race by two means: voluntarily stepping down or nature takes its course.
My civil rights, civil liberties brain says "yeah people should be able to do this stuff minus the breaking in portion." Not because of property damage, but because, I mean, I absolutely despise Nancy and if something had happened to her then I'm not going to feel particularly sad over it. But it could also be a non total sack of shit and having a norm of "these few thousand hogs are really angry, so the Speaker just had to die" 🤷♀️ also seems "pretty bad."
And of course my leftist brain is ripping itself apart between "If (s)he dies, (s)he dies" and "this will directly lead to even harsher crackdowns on BLM, anti-Israel, etc. protests by the left" Which are basically all violence-free, yet get met with 100x the reaction of the hog rally directly threatening (to whatever degree) congress' lives. Of course that's happening ANYWAY and this prosecution or pursuit of prosecution will probably only accelerate timelines (I'm not an accelerationist because as of right now that just leads directly to true fascism, whatever that ends up looking like (not just orange man)).
So, in the end... I guess I don't care? I mean I don't like what he did, obviously. [liberalness] The courts are the proper place for his grievances not in DC with his loyal squad of piggies. [/liberalness] But had it been a left winger or even a Bernie type who felt cheated, and I legitimately agreed with his claim of being cheated, then I'd want to do (hypothetically, in a book, etc.) what they did. Or, more hypothetical things even.
Of course this all runs up against reality which is you don't take over a government by force by occupying its capitol. You don't even do it by killing all those leaders. The government is run by thousands of faces and names we don't know and it would continue with or without those elected names in place. And liberals don't want to go down THAT road of speaking about actual revolutionary tactics, who would have to "go", what places have to be captured, etc. Certainly the MSM doesn't anyway for obvious reasons. The fucking FBI director would probably call Chris Hayes live on TV if he started talking about that shit. "Did Trump supporters plan to bomb local electrical infrastructure? New evidence is comin- hold on... ok, my producer is telling me to move on... ok... Trump was back in court today for his next round of slander cases..."
I don't know how much weight is placed behind "intent but lacking the knowledge or ability" vs pure "intent" devoid of context such as knowledge. Like if you intend to overthrow the government, but you think doing so means breaking into the capitol, is that an insurrection? I dunno. I'd classify the whole thing probably as a riot myself. Obviously libs love institutions so defacing the beautiful capitol is a crime worthy of execution by itself in their eyes.
But it could also be a non total sack of shit and having a norm of “these few thousand hogs are really angry, so the Speaker just had to die” 🤷♀️ also seems “pretty bad.”
Seems to me that this is what is going on with Trump, though. A few thousand- well no, a few million ghouls- card-carrying Democrats and Republicans alike- are really angry, so Mr. Former President has to be banned from office and his followers criminalized en masse, one way or another- doesn't matter how they do it.
So, in the end… I guess I don’t care?
I share the sentiment. Mainly I just plan to leave (Canada, not the US). Things are, especially in the US, almost certainly going to shit within the next decade if even that, and honestly? Trump probably isn't going to be the instigator, I also see him as no more of a threat than the "establishment" political bloc/blob, and considering how deranged their foreign policy has proven to be under Biden- I suspect Trump would even be the better candidate to maintain the status quo, reel in the empire a bit, and bring back some sanity in that regard.
But ultimately I don't care. I'm not an accelerationist, but I also can't bring myself to care- "red fascist, blue fascist, orange fascist-" the blue fascists at least are less likely to fuck over minorities and the LGBT community, but then at the same time it seems to me like they're the ones, alongside the red fascists (who are really just the opposite side of the same coin) driving the west rapidly towards outright fascism, domestically and certainly in foreign policy.
Of course this all runs up against reality which is you don’t take over a government by force by occupying its capitol. You don’t even do it by killing all those leaders. The government is run by thousands of faces and names we don’t know and it would continue with or without those elected names in place.
Agreed. Though obviously I don't think Trump tried to do any of that, nor do I think there is any solid case to be made (legally) arguing he did, however people might feel or extrapolate things wildly about it.
I don’t know how much weight is placed behind “intent but lacking the knowledge or ability” vs pure “intent” devoid of context such as knowledge.
I imagine either is damning- if it can be decisively and legitimately proven in court. I'd argue that Trump's actions can't be, and that they didn't have either intent to begin with anyways, and a massive effort is underway to obscure events and muddy the waters to claim otherwise- he said his piece, which was not meaningfully different from Al Gore's contesting results in 2000- and handed over power, sure, he was a "bad sport" and didn't attend the inauguration, but he didn't do anything remotely illegal.
that Trump tried to rig the election,
Let's be fair here, he did basically ask Republican governors to fuck with election results in their states
You don’t need to be convicted of a federal crime to be precluded. Aiding and abetting an armed insurrection WHEN the person is a sworn office holder is all that is needed. The crime isn’t that he committed a crime, it was that he violated a clause in the US constitution written to prevent Confederate leaders from holding office after the Civil War.
The 14 amendment 3rd clause (14.3) has 2 main components: 1: An office holder or military personelle who swore an oath to uphold the Constitution 2: participates in Rebellion or insurrection against said Constition or gives considerable aid to those who due. When both conditions are fulfilled in order, a person is ineligible to serve in federal office again.
The 14.3 wasnt just to ban all Confederates, but those Confederates who had essentially broken their oaths. It requires an act of congress to allow such a person to serve again.
Now insurrection against the Constitution isn't a crime to my knowledge at any level. And it's sort of clever that the writers of the amendment side step any criminal charges. Criminal charges require trials and convictions.
Are you really defending Trump? You think this is a massive witch-hunt?
Are you really defending Trump? You think this is a massive witch-hunt?
As I said, I don't like the guy- I don't give two shits what happens to the guy, or to US "democracy." But yeah, anyone who thinks that the capitol "attack" was an insurrection, is a sucker who hasn't seen real insurrection (successful or not) like that which the west has instigated across countless other countries, and who watches far too much CNN. Real talk here- you lot (those who fall for this) distrust western establishment media about China, about Russia/Ukraine, about all sorts of foreign issues- but then you fall hook, line, and sinker for a blatant set-up in domestic politics, as long as it's "the other guy" (because that is what it is- you may have progressed past liberalism and pop leftism, yet the mentality of the "other guy" remains) IMO.
Yeah, it's a witch hunt. The "witches" being hunted are a bunch of chuds who generally deserve it, but almost entirely not for the reasons being tossed at them- hell, mostly they're legally in the clear. Hilariously enough, the far more powerful and active forces of fascism in the US are the ones massively ramping up the powers of the state, directing precedent in dangerous new territory, and blatantly engaging in political suppression and violating the alleged rights of their citizenry on paper, all while claiming to be "defending their democracy" and "preventing the rise of fascism."
Fascism in the US and much of the west is coming in blazing through the metaphorical backdoor- the establishment, ie. the "left" (center, center-right, faux-progressives) and the establishment center/mainstream "right," and you somehow can't see it?
I think saying Trump is not complicit in the Jan 6th event is foolishness and accomplishes nothing. What are you trying to prove? If someone commits a crime with little competence they are still guilty by definition. Of course, in an outrage driven political environment, people will blow it out of proportion for their own ends, but this doesn't change that Trump routinely attempts to rile up his base into committing acts of violence, including sedition, which is a crime.
I'm simply stating facts as I see it. What am I trying to prove? Nothing much really, stating my opinion based on facts as I've seen them. As said, I don't care for Trump and his crowd, and I care even less for American "democracy" so frankly I'm just enjoying the beautiful sights of the empire's decline and keeping myself informed both out of personal interest, and out of a desire to insulate myself from whatever the future holds.
including sedition, which is a crime.
They'll have to pin that on him first. Once again, stating facts as I see them- they can't, not without further mutilations of the justice system as it exists, and a further collapse of their ability to manufacture consent with large portions of the population- not just Trump's followers, but anyone with enough sense to see the writing on the wall IMO.
facts as I’ve seen them
Indeed.
without further mutilations of the justice system as it exists, and a further collapse of their ability to manufacture consent
The imperial narrative is discursive and inherently contested. It is not simply created and enforced by conscious state agents, but is also an inherent part of the social relations and characteristics of the public. It is a result of contradictions and relations, not mere top down hegemony. However, the divide doesn't necessarily inhibit imperial hegemony nor does it necessarily signal a decline, only development, which may actually end up invigorating imperial power.
There have always been massive contradictions in the American system and now is not even close to as dire as past struggles have been. In fact when internal contradictions really got hairy for the US leading up to the Civil War, it eventually allowed for massive expansion at the cost of breaking the enslaver plantation class. There was no intial intention to pay such a price but they did it anyway and it got them a continent once the dust settled. The US is not as rigid as many believe.
anyone with enough sense to see the writing on the wall IMO
Like all the people that know Trump tried to incite a coup, even if it was carried out by incompetent people that have no clue about anything at all? The idea that prosecuting Trump will choke the US seems to be a massive stretch. If anything it will bring it more cohesion and make it easier to achieve the consent you are concerned about.
The question is how will it actually play out? Has Trump played his role already? Is he necessary for legitimizing the already popular democracy vs tyranny narrative or is Putin/Xi enough? Is he still needed to solidify the Democratic Party and the Republican Party? Maybe they decide he is better to keep around so they can inflate fears over project 2025 or maybe he is booted off more ballets anyway and they roll with it. I don't see a bad option. Even a Trump win has imperial benifits discursivley and materially.
Like all the people that know Trump tried to incite a coup
Clearly we don't exist in the same universe in regards to this topic. It's the facts as you see them here as well.
it eventually allowed for massive expansion at the cost of breaking the enslaver plantation class.
The difference between the slaving, plantation owning class of yesteryear, and the petit bourgeois and working classes' discontent today, is that one side happens to be overwhelmingly representing US industry and production- agriculture, domestic industry, etc... and the other side is the financier/managerial class which has been starving out the former, or exporting it overseas for its own profit. In the US civil war, the Union represented American industry- that same industry has been gutted into a shadow of what it once was, and its bitter remnants are coalescing with all the other demographics who have been left at the wayside of the globalized economy. And- for all the "blue state, red state" divisions- both sides' spread across the country know no borders; the comparison of the "slave state, free state" does not exist.
The idea that prosecuting Trump will choke the US seems to be a massive stretch. If anything it will bring it more cohesion and make it easier to achieve the consent you are concerned about.
I ain't concerned about the "cohesion/consent." Frankly, if every American citizen decided tomorrow that the US was an illegal government, and the country balkanized into thousands of microstates, I would be very happy. I don't care about your country, actually I see it as the epicenter of all modern evil and what's wrong with the world, I'd go so far as to describe it as the likely "great filter" humanity must overcome, lest we face extinction.
If you think this is going to lead to more "cohesion" though.... really? What are you smoking? Unless by "cohesion" you mean jackboots on the ground, not beyond the official borders of the empire, but within the continental USA...
Why wouldn't it lead to more cohesion? The discourse becomes more entrenched and settler nightmares become easier to wield making action easier to mobilize or imagine. The future becomes more and more certain. This is how American history has always worked and it's how American politics has developed. I wish more people understood this place before speaking on it.
for all the “blue state, red state” divisions- both sides’ spread across the country know no borders; the comparison of the “slave state, free state” does not exist.
In other words, things aren't really that dire for the empire, like I said. (Although if you look at oil backed attempts to dictate how shadow banks invest you will find some striking geographic, class divisions brewing even if they are not like the mid 19th century) Furthermore, the slave-free question was not about the merrits of slavery, it was about unified expansion. Your fixation on industry in the Civil War misses the point that the Civil War marks the most rapid expansionary period in US history all despite the turmoil of speculation driven depression and political polarity.
I don’t care about your country, actually
You flatter me
that same industry has been gutted into a shadow
This is an exhausting narrative that is rarely wielded correctly. I'll just say one thing to blow it up. Oil.
As for the apparent victims of "globalization," none of this is new to US history. We blow up our economic systems pretty routinely. There are dead mines and ghost towns dating back nearly 200 years yet it hasn't truly harmed the empire yet and it's not clear that the overplayed narrative about the rust belt, or rural communities, will be anything more than more of the same. It's not like those regions are not being actively gentrified as we speak anyway.
Further, the tensions of the civil war are not the only tense moment in US history that led to massive expansion. So was the great depression. Gee now how did that turn out? Roll the war footage, Jerry.
one side happens to be overwhelmingly representing US industry and production- agriculture, domestic industry, etc… and the other side is the financier/managerial class which has been starving out the former, or exporting it overseas for its own profit
Its not that simple. We literally mined all the best iron already. The steel industry died of natural causes and that shit isn't coming back regardless of how nefarious finance is or isn't. Golden ages don't last forever, especially when they are inherently extractive and imperial, this is something the US "working class" doesn't seem to understand and it's partially because this false bourgeoisie narrative that coddles industrialists can only breed reaction. US prosperity cannot and never will be legitimate and looking to the past is meant to breed nostalgia for a reset, which is exactly the cohesion the US seeks and it's exactly where we are headed.
Unless by “cohesion” you mean jackboots on the ground, not beyond the official borders of the empire, but within the continental USA…
This has already been the case for literally centuries.
I’d go so far as to describe it as the likely “great filter” humanity must overcome, lest we face extinction.
Yet, unsurprisingly, it's structure and history has evaded you.
It was an insurrection though. The rioters were threatening to shoot, hold hostage and stamp over the political power in this country. Just because not all of them had guns doesn't mean it wasn't an insurrection.
Not saying there's any world that it would have worked in but he 100% instigated it. He hyped up the rally for weeks talking about how he needed people there to make sure they don't steal it then held a rally the morning of where he said they should all march to the capitol and he'd be marching with them.
It's wild people still act like it was anything more than the worst examples of humanity smearing their shit on the wall but that is their attempt at overturning an election, it's just they literally never considered the possibility of negative consequences.
He deffinitly tried to incite an insurrection he's just really dumb and lazy.
Trump didn’t start a land war in Europe, so I’m willing to cut him some slack.
By some mystical alchemy, Bidens crimes aren't charged even with nearly a million casualties.
Because neither party wants to set rhe precedent of charging presidents for war crimes.
Probably not quite yet, but it does seem like where things may be headed in the long run.
Such a dream would probably be a nightmare. Humanity already pushed its luck once after the destruction of the USSR when its nuclear weapons fell into the hands of unhinged right-wing lunatics and clowns with no sense of self-preservation, the same sort of misfortune wheel will spin again when the time comes for the US, only much worse because their media does its best to drive everyone towards aggression, xenophobia, loss of patience and attention span, propensity to factual and logical errors, and binary thinking.
The best outcome for us would be for the US to remain under a corrupt federal civilian government overseeing states with massively weakened economic and political power, that could be coerced into demilitarisation by international pressure and absorbed into China's sphere of influence at once
I think it's better for the US to shatter, than for its continuation as a geopolitical threat to the peace of Afro-Eurasia and Latin America, and its survival as the bulwark and champion of settler-colonial ideology.
Humanity can push its luck once more, or a dozen more times, and it would still likely be better than the continuation of the continental USA, which in and of itself- even without its foreign bases and territories- is undeniably an empire. A unified North American behemoth, one built upon such wretched foundations as the US, has to be contained, or better yet, shattered, for there to be any sort of lasting peace, IMO.
Hear me out, what if the US just doesn't have a president for a while. Give the role a break, give the country some time to recover. Nothing wrong with a break every once in a while.
Hear me out, what if the US just doesn’t
have a presidentfor a while. Give theroleworld a break, give the country some time torecovernot be. Nothing wrong with a break every once in a while.
my guess is the supreme court steps in to overrule colorado and any other state thinking about doing this
I can definitely see that happening given that this opens a whole can of worms.
although they might also wait until after primary season just to see how it plays out a bit, first.
You could totally open up a new case saying that Colorado is in violation of federal law with respect to its obligation to carry out its part of the Presidential Election.
The ballots still have blanks even the digital ones. You can vote for yourself. Or Trump or whichever of the duopoly candidates was removed from the ballot in your state.
But it does hurt the perceived legitimacy of the election. I had thought the reason so many stop the steal legislators did a 180 after the capital riots was that owning the libs wasn't worth endangering bourgeois rule.
This is shortsighted of the duopoly to say the least.
I think you've nailed the problem on the head. If the election goes forward where some states allow one candidate and others allow the other, then whoever wins will lack legitimacy in the eyes of the public. Whichever side loses will immediately claim that the election was unfair and that the results should be overturned. This gets US a step closer to the civil war scenario.
They're so used to doing these things in other countries that they will try it themselves?
Let me grab some popcorn.
Where is Nuland right now? Is she in the States? Is this what happens if she is allowed to stay there too long, her very presence just causes color revolutions?
From what I've seen- it looks like it's not merely a matter of removing him from the ballots, but ruling him as "ineligible" for presidency- votes for him will be disqualified (if this isn't shot down by the US supreme court) basically. People will be able to throw away their vote by writing him in, but even if the majority of the population did- he would still be "ineligible."
Still, can you imagine if, the day after the election, it’s basically just Biden and a few third-party cranks? I stopped taking american elections seriously years ago, but having Biden at like 97% and even winning fucking Mississippi will look completely absurd to large numbers of people, even some libs perhaps.
This sounds like the lead up to a civil war or secession crisis tbh. If half the country refuses to recognise the elected leader and elects their own, either the central government can try to crack down on this or just let it happen and do nothing. Either way it will increase the divides in the nation.
Though I think the most likely scenario is that they grumble a lot but ultimately nothing comes of it, neither side really presses the issue because it isn't really in either side's best interest and Trump gets elected. There's not really any profit to be had in succession, so I can't see it happening.
Civil War begins
Insulin and Jalapeño Popper supply chain is shut down
96% of republicans successionists instantly die.
Second American Civil War Length: 2 and a half days.
Yeah, any conflict between the two would need the army to split, and I don't know enough about how factionalised the US military is to know whether that's likely to happen.
Very unlikely for the military to splinter, as unlike other countries like Yugoslavia for example, soldiers don’t have strong allegiances to rival internally nationalist ideals, or separate tribes, or major clashes between religion (India and Pakistan), and so on.
The allegiance of the US military is to the state and state alone. It’s the state that pays their pay checks and pension after all. You would get some defectors, but they would be a tiny tiny margin. The military is mostly homogeneous in its ideals as well, as even POC, indigenous, immigrant, LGBT, etc, soldiers are mostly highly conservative, and nationalistic, defecting to any succeeding army would be treason and unthinkable to a majority of them.
Given that the military is firmly on the right, I think it's quite plausible that they would largely support a republican dictatorship as long as it had a thin veil of legality to it.
One could argue what is happening right now by Biden and co. is- if not a coup, the workings of a complete capture and closing off (ie. the end) of US "democracy," from the most prominent non-establishment political opponent (Trump) and a mass political movement of increasingly disenfranchised petit bourgeoisie and chuds in general, on incredibly shaky, if not outright nonexistent, farcical grounds.
Actually, I'd argue that's entirely what's going on here.
At what point should a person be precluded from running for office? What’s the cut off point or limit? Tax fraud? First degree murder? All the evidence has shown that Trump has done everything in his power to approach this in bad faith and grasp at any chance of maintaining his power.
The state of Colorado is not “Biden and Co”, ironically they are flexing the same “states rights” that Republicans love to talk about. Do you think Biden is ordering this?
You do realize that the only reason Trump is beelining for the presidency is to give himself God Emperor protections and claim that he is untouchable as president, right? Do you think he has any motivation other then that in running? Minus the absurd narcissism and egoism.
The "state's rights" arguments are entirely valid, so I'll leave those be. Though we both know this sets a terrible precedent (one that I'm all too happy to see, because the less legitimacy the US govt. has in the eyes of the people, the better) and has a very good chance of being shot down by the US supreme court (that's what this entire thread is about, other "blue" and "red" states moving to follow suit).
You do realize that the only reason Trump is beelining for the presidency is to give himself God Emperor protections and claim that he is untouchable as president, right? Do you think he has any motivation other then that in running? Minus the absurd narcissism and egoism.
As for this- obviously, yes. Considering all the farces they're trying to hit him with, I don't even blame him- might very well be that presidency is the only thing that can save his head. If they could just kill him and be done with it, they would have already done so IMO. But let's not kid ourselves, he's only aiming for what Biden and the establishment two-party monopoly already have, and Biden practically embodies- all that "God Emperor protections" shit? That's old news, and Trump's own pursuit of the same now is because of all that passes for lawfare, coming down on his head.
My take on things? Hell, if he does actually end up winning and being allowed to return to the presidency, he would have to be suicidal to not only pursue said protections, but strike right back at those targeting him right now (I'm aware it's not just "Biden and co," but describing it as that was most succinct). But let's not forget, the ones who instigated all this, who have done what Trump himself didn't during his 4 years in office- the blatant suppression and perversion of the legal system that is currently going on- and this is all hypotheticals, what Trump "could do-" what is going on right now, and what is most likely to continue well past when Trump likely winds up in a cell, maybe for life- is all this and more under the "establishment" political bloc which encompasses the overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans alike, and the political blob of various govt. agencies, economic interests, and general bureaucracy that makes up the US status quo- the "deep state," if you will (and they certainly behaved as a "deep state" in their targeting or obstructions of Trump, who, while no less of a imperialist, stepped on no small number of toes in domestic politics, and acted in quite a few ways in opposition to their imperialist designs- for instance in regards to his trying to pull troops out of Syria, or his not escalating things overly much with Russia, etc)
I don't know, the regular forces are as you describe but the various state national guard units seem like a real mixed bag. I could see some of them going along with their governor in a balkaniation-type scenario
A conscript who works 5 days a week at Enterprise Rent-A-Car or Walmart is hardly on the same level of a US Marine.
They would be garrison troops at best, or military police. They would be slaughtered in any actual combat, as they were in Iraq.
You are confident the United States Military wouldn’t join a right wing uprising?
Okay.
Led by who? With what ideological backing?
At best it would be a coup. How would a Republican dictatorship differ from the current US government in ideology?
Theocratic law, like the evangelicals have been trying to establish
There is no theocratic consensus. They would turn on each other instantly.
Do you believe that Evangelicals would work alongside Catholics? Hell, there are so many flavors of evangelism alone that would never work together.
Catholics would have their set of ideals. Mormons and Latter Day Saints would have a different set. Evangelicals would have another. Protestants would also make up a sizeable majority. Who gets to decide the theocracy?
For example, abortion, over 60% of Republicans and Christians were hostile to removing Roe v Wade. How would a theocratic leadership ever hold anything together without instantly devolving into infighting?
I mean, the Air Force is run by an Evangelical cult. It doesn't feel like a huge stretch to say that the guys with the guns (and flying machines that create tons of Good Troops LOOOOOOOOL) will end up in charge in this scenario.
By that note, the vast majority of the Navy is Protestant, and the Marine Corp is highly Catholic.
I would place more money on the Navy being in change in a Junta scenario if I’m honest. Plus, which branch is going to say no to the guys sitting in nuclear submarines? The air force with their aging bombers?
The Navy is also twice the size of the Air Force in sheer size, and they operate the worlds second largest Air Force funnily enough. Plus the navy is one of the few competent branches that would probably fare well in a combat scenario, unlike the Air Force which is used to dropping a few bombs on civilians and not facing any opposition.
Literally what the Northerners thought in the first civil war too.
History doesn’t repeat, but it sure does rhyme.
Granted the Anaconda Strategy did work, as it firstly kept France and Britain hostile and unable to trade/supply the Confederacy, while also destroying the very essence of the South’s economy which relied on international exports.
By the second year of fighting, most Southern soldiers simply didn’t have boots, their weapons became hopelessly out of date, their uniforms were ragtag and disheveled, and they had barely any supplies, artillery, or ability to mechanize (trains).
I would say the North’s strategy definitely paid off.
I can’t wait to be scolded into voting on a single candidate ballot.
If you don't vote for Biden, you're voting for T̸͈̟̥̟̽͂͋͗̓͠H̵̥͋͌̀̍̿̿̑͊̑̍̆͝Ē̵̡͕̥͍͓̠̺̲̲̥͖̬̍̿̀͆̄͊̀͒̓͛̚ ̴͍͔͈͎̝̘͕̜͓̰̯̟̍̀͆̔̉̃̕͜À̷͈̥͔̞̺̭͆̓̂̎B̶̡̩͍͇̫̱̠̼̖͇͉̃ͅY̴̬̗̘̜̩̜̥͕̜̖̋͆͆͒̒̾̚͠S̸̠̓̉̓̀͐̈̎̓̔S̸̥̪̳̯̔͋!
Maybe my Year of Four Presidents prediction was off, we could also get a president/anti-president situation happening. Now where would america's Avignon be? Richmond? Mar-a-Lago?
I'm the end the oligarchy will get some stooge in there. It might cause civil unrest but they will get them in there. It will also be someone the Republicans are ok with because they are the ones who not only have more of the guns but also the support of the police more or less. If they forced a democratic president on the people there would be more gunfire. If they force a Republican then the libs will just removed and moan about it.
I don’t think the Republican states will be able to block Biden. I’m sure they’ll try and it won’t work and they’ll get mad. But then again they’re always mad. I personally don’t like the precedent; that being said, who on Earth thinks that if a leftist candidate ran, they wouldn’t just do this immediately, precedent or not? The fact that it’s being done justifies the action when it inevitably happens to the left(we did it to the right wing, we’re just being fair to protect the country, they’ll say) but I stress that it would happen regardless. Bourgeois liberalism will ditch whatever rules they have for their grand spectacle the minute they start to lose and they’ll grasp for their Fascist side to change rules and drop all semblance of fairness or democracy.
If the Republican party establishment wants, they can use this to nullify Trump, get a massive fundraising boost, and a huge boost to whomever their candidate happens to be. 1) It gets Trump out of the way. 2)The Repubs can scream about how its the deep state/Demmacommie Plot/Judicial overreach. 3) The Repub candidate can spend the entire election cycle talking about nothing else besides who a small group of unelected individuals stepped all over democracy and if YOU ONLY ELECT, RON DESANTIS, HE PROMISES YOU THAT HE WILL DRAIN THE SWAMP!!
Who do they have?
DeSantis? He is the most uncharismatic fascistic cretin that legitimately gives people the creeps. He is deeply unpopular, his ideas are insane and have no support, and he’s most likely a psychopath and deeply mentally unwell.
Ramaswamy? There is a 0% chance that republicans willingly elect a brown person. Let alone an immigrant brown person. He is also deeply uncharismatic and unpopular.
Who else do they have? Nikky Haley? The runner polling at single digits?
They'll vote for whoever has an R by their name. It doesn't matter who it is.
Only if they’re charismatic and roughly aligned with their ideals. The charisma why Trump blew it out of the water but McCain floundered. Someone like DeSantis looks and sounds like an actual demon, and the only supporters of his I’ve seen have been actual deranged Nazis.
I also stand by it that a large number of republicans would never vote for a black, brown, POC, indigenous, LGBT, or Asian candidate. Their campaign would be dead in the water.
I mean, Trump has some pretty queeny vibes and it didn't scare off the republican man'o'sphere types.
I think if Trump isn't interested in getting out of their way then the Republicans can't get past him this easily. They would need him to either actually get behind whoever they put forward (unlikely) or be completely silenced in a way that they can pull off pretending that he would be behind their guy.
But it does give them a "law and order" excuse for why their hands are tied and its in the Republican party voter's duty to vote for whoever IS actually on the ballot with an R by their name.
